2009 October 25
Well this thread proves one thing, Sarah Palin creates a lot of emotion. So I may as well jump in to. The premise of the Swemson argument is incorrect, I believe. While Sarah P is self-evidently a religious person, it is a gross exageration to imply she “threw her religious and moral beliefs” into people’s faces. The opposite is clearly true. That is, she was mocked for not aborting a down syndrome baby, for having the audacity to support her 18 year old daughter for getting pregnant out of wedlock, and for supporting the same views as all other candidates about gay marriage.
But what explicit policies has she proposed that should scare all the religo-phobes that seem so prominent in public discourse these days? In her own state, she supported the rights of gays to civil unions to receive the same benefits as married couples. While I have not heard her say it, I bet she would permit holiday symbols on state property — boy that sure would be scary! Oh yeah, and she opposes late term abortions — like 75% of all americans.
She might have said something about “intelligent design” – another scary thought. We live in a Universe whose existence is so old that 99.99999% of all “time” occurred before man– “homo-sapien” – even appeared on this earth 100,000 years ago. We know so little about our origins — as the Hubble data gathering satellites continue to demonstrate — a little humility about our roots seems reasonable to me. She is also for abstinence before marriage–at least for young people. Oooh, scary.
But what laws has she proposed– except for late term abortions perhaps —that should get the relgio-phobes so incensed? Her dominant philosophy is to not have the government encourage social engineering experiments and moral indoctrination in schools. Swemson has it quite backwards.
I have a hard time finding anything to disagree with in Michael’s comment.